That banning books is justifiable

To begin, I will refute my opponent's argument that "if a book would be considered hate speech when spoken, it should be banned." 

The problem with this idea comes from how, "What classifies as hate speech?" Once you start banning books, where does the slope end? I believe that society has to learn how to think critically to understand what is acceptable reading material and what isn't. It's crucial to our own education, and with censorship from the government, you never learn that skill.

Second, banning a book such as Mein Kampf can serve as fuel to the fire where more people would want to read that book who may have had no interest in it, otherwise.

We need books like Mein Kampf not because they're good books but because as this article points out, "Mein Kampf is an indicator of where ideologies can lead, when you fail to deal with your past."

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe it more of a historic work that shows us what happens when ideology goes off the rails. 

Article:

I also would like to refute my opponent's argument for "Books that call for the death of people should be banned." Again, this becomes a slippery slope where we need to learn critical thinking as a society. I think banning books such as this could be harmful because of how it won't get rid of these books, but it will create a black market for this harmful type of material and fan the flames. 

The other problem with my opponent's argument is that through banning books that call for violence against certain types of people, you would also have to ban religious texts like the Bible and the Quran. Good luck with that. You would cause murder and riots in the streets if you banned either.

If you're not saying that these books call for violence, I can reference passages in the Bible, such as, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. -Exodus 22:18"

And in the Quran, you have violence endorsements, such as, "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter... and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah. -Quran 2:191" 

"Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. -Quran 8:65"

Where does the banning of these books end if you were to call for such? The burden of proof rests on my opponent. 

In addition, I'd like to point out that the critical thinking Christians and the critical thinking Muslims understand that these passages are not to be taken literally despite the fact that some could interpret it as calling for violence.

That highlights another important point, "What classifies as calls for violence?" I argue that without critical thinking, you can justify anything cruel and harmful.

 

My opponent uses the debate point, "If one were to find a book that simply repeated the phrase "'Kill all women!' over and over again, I doubt anyone would find it objectionable to ban that book."

I would find that objectionable because you don't need to ban/censor a book like this. The stupidity speaks for itself, and anyone with a brain isn't going to be interested in reading even 10 pages of, "Kill all women." No one is going to want to read a book that simply says, "Kill all women!" over and over again. You could take your most misogynistic human being and even they won't read a book like this because of how it doesn't communicate anything of value. Books like that don't require censorship--the stupidity speaks for itself, and even the stupid are repelled by it. It censors itself through its lack of value.

We need a society of educated and critical thinking individuals who can figure out how to censor themselves from poor information. The trouble with letting the government do your thinking for you becomes how you never learn to take responsibility for yourself and your own education. Most of your education doesn't happen inside of a classroom. 

I don't find banning books justifiable because bad ideas speak for themselves. Like let's say time travel from the year 2500 visit our planet. They don't even have to show us the error of our ways and ban us from our lesser technologies because the ideas speak for themselves, and we will naturally gravitate towards the better ideas. The same is true of books. 

Anyone who's got a wink of critical thinking will never find the banning of any kind of book justifiable because people will naturally feel no compulsions to reader these books, and even if they do, they can figure out what is and isn't right without the need to sacrifice our liberties because of a few truly bad eggs. 

The other problem comes from how censorship becomes a slippery slope unto a death to freedom. China has banned so many different books and publications that it is impossible to list all of them. Do we really want that for America? The government has no right to choose what is and isn't correct. That's my responsibility.  

A Quick and Simple Refutation

2) It's curious that my opponent talks about why we shouldn't ban Mein Kampf and then chooses to use the argument that good ideas generally prevail over bad ones. Again, this is historically questionable, and the legacy of the man (and the people) behind that particular book very much proves that hate speech, whether written or spoken, can lead to truly horrific action. This objection to the resolution - that good ideas and bad ideas speak for themselves - is entirely negated with even a cursory look at the bad ideas of history, especially the big, sweeping ones.

More Arguments in Favor

1) The effects of violent media  have been studied for a long time and are well documented, and it's been conclusively shown that violent media causes increased aggressive thoughts and behaviors¹. By making available to people violent books that are extremist, detailed, and most importantly, target specific groups, we are effectively agreeing that these studies shouldn't affect our behavior despite the unfortunate results we know will follow. This is particularly important for schools; we use a rating system that disallows children from buying certain movies and video games, is there a reason we shouldn't ban certain reading material from school libraries on the same basis?

2) There are many restrictions on our freedoms. Freedom of speech is one example, as hate speech is generally banned, as is speech intended to incite panic (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is none). The same restrictions should apply to the written word.

My opponent has not provided proof that it is never justifiable to ban written material of any kind. The resolution is affirmed.

---

1) https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior

1. To answer my opponent's question, banning hate speech is the same as banning reading material that reflects the same ideologies, and in the United States, we haven't banned either of them for good reason. It reduces our freedom, and people can figure out for themselves what is good and what isn't. We don't need to sacrifice our freedoms to do so. 

My opponent seems to think that I'm against hate speech and hate speech automatically turns into hateful action, but as citizens, we have a responsibility to change these people's minds and show them the superior way, not ban their ideologies. That will have far more impact than banning hate speech, which will only lurk in the dark, otherwise. 

To be clear, I'm against hate speech, but banning it isn't the answer because of how it will still exist. If you want to change something, change the person's mind. That will have a far longer lasting impact. 

The video below is what we need more of. Reaching out to these people who are actually the victims of their own hateful ideologies will have a far longer lasting impact. When you can get a KKK grand wizard to walk away from his KKK robes, that's a lot more powerful than having these organizations hiding in the dark, wouldn't you say? 

2. My opponent points out that historically, bad ideas have often been used as much as good ideas. I would like to refute that statement with the notion that educated minds know the difference between good ideas and bad ideas--look at the fruit to know the tree. They understand that hate is a waste of time. 

I don't believe that we should ban Mein Kampf because of its historical relevance. Those who want to understand World War II need access to such an invaluable historic book to understand the minds of the Nazis. Otherwise, they can't truly understand World War II because you can't figure out what would cause someone to act that way. Like it or not, Mein Kampf is a part of our history as a human species, and any historian will say it's a cornerstone piece of Nazi literature to understand the psychology of the Nazis. 

Why do we look at the minds of serial killers? Because we want to be like them? Absolutely not! To understand them so that we can treat their ailments better. 

My opponent's ideas are based entirely on the notion of fear at best about how hateful ideas will spread. 

My argument is one of hope and learning that we must seek to understand the causes of hatred to fully relieve its grip on our society today. While I may not agree with what someone has to say, I will die for their right to say it. 

In the next statement, what my opponent suggests is nothing short of communism. This has been tried and failed every time. Examples include Venezuela, Russia, Nicaragua, the Socialist Republic of Serbia and the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. 

My opponent dangerously talks about the effects of violence in the media. So is he suggesting that we control the media and censor and imprison journalists like in China and Turkey? In Turkey, writers have a saying that you haven't truly become a writer until you have been to prison.... Does that sound even remotely appealing to anyone? 

In the same way, banning books will be a slippery slope towards that direction, which I will fight to the death to defend. Freedom of the press is essential to any democracy, and as soon as we start banning books, that will be the death of our democracy.

We shouldn't ban reading material on the same basis as video games because books have the potential to teach, whereas video games are purely for entertainment. I never learned anything of value from a video game, whereas some lessons that I took from a book stayed with me for life. That's why we shouldn't ban books because you never know what will help someone. 

I don't believe in banning books because why should anyone have the right to tell me what is good and what isn't good for me? This has historically always been abused in the name of greed. For example, why did the Pope ban Machiavelli's The Prince in 1559? Answer: Because it endangered the power of the state. Do you really want to live in a world where someone else is telling you what to do? I don't. 

My opponent seems to falsely think that we have many restrictions on our freedom of speech, however, he follows up with weak evidence at best and points out little of value with only two very well-known examples and very weak justifications of these many restrictions. 

In addition, I can refute his point about hate speech being banned as outright ignorance with three different examples of its existence. First, you have KKK rallies that have not been banned. Second, you have the Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals quite hatefully, which has never been banned. On the other end, you have Black Hebrew Israelites who are infamous for their inflammatory sidewalk ministry. I'm giving a broad spectrum of examples to show that hate speech is not banned in any direction. 

Anyone from the outside looking in can see that these people have harmful ideologies, but most people see them as idiots at best. Do we sacrifice our freedom in the name of "protection"? That's what my opponent entire argument is based on--fear. Give up a little freedom to have a little more safety.  I don't approve the banning of books any more than I approve the banning of a group's right to free speech because of how it has a dangerously cumulative effect. 

I will end the second round with a quote in direct counter to my opponent's argument of fear. It comes from Benjamin Franklin, which should only raise the credibility, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

To close, a thanks to my opponent for taking part and a brief summary/rebuttal:

1) Speech in print that would be banned in voice should be banned as well.

2) There are several classes of citizens protected from hate speech in the US, to say nothing of outside countries.

3) Communism is an economic system and has nothing to do with this resolution.

4) This resolution is affirmed by reason, and cannot be refuted by appeals to emotion.

Thank you to the judges in advance!